Posted October 31, 2012 | comments 3 Comments

Letter to the Editor: Obama, liberals support issues against Christian principles


There are lots of things I don't understand and some I can accept as that's just the way they are. Let me start by saying that one of the big questions in my mind right now is how can a person call himself a Christian and support a candidate who goes against every principle that a Christian is supposed to believe in. Now, before the left wing Democrats reach for the Maalox, read the rest of the story, as Paul Harvey used to say.

If you call yourself a Christian, you believe the writers of the Bible were inspired by God, you believe Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary, you believe he died for your sins and three days later he arose. I also know that I fail every day to live up to my full potential and I am forgiven because Jesus gave his life for that reason. All Christians are supposed to accept this as it is written, every word without doubt.

Obama and the left wing liberals support many things that go against biblical principles. Now here are the big questions. What does the Bible say about murder and same sex marriage? Abortion is murder; the Bible clearly states that God knew you before you were born, so that's that. It also clearly states the one man should not lie with another. So how can you call yourself a Christian and support the total opposite? The Bible clearly states that you have to be one way or another, there is no middle ground or straddling the fence. When I see someone in church waiving, jumping up and down, holding the Bible so all can see and go out and get in a car with enough Obama, Biden stickers on it to paper a small room, I want to say, "Will the real person please stand up?" According to God's word, you can't have it both ways. So which are you?

Earl Cutlip, Strasburg


    I am the kind of person that reads more than the parts I want to hear Mr. Cutlip. The oft quoted "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you" by pro-birth advocates always leaves out the rest... and before you came forth out of the womb I sanctified you, and I ordained you a prophet unto the nations.
    I know, it just doesn't suit the purpose of deception when passing along the story to explain the whole truth, in that it was God's will that Jeremiah become a prophet.
    Like just about anything in the bible it is debatable. Beginning from the many re-writes to today's versions, to the different denominations various takes, to those who simply choose to take what they will and ignore what they don't want.

    Ultimately these arguments provide no justification as to why a country founded on freedom of religion(among others) should by law impose one belief set on all its people, and the Supreme Court upheld that.

    "All Christians are supposed to accept this as it is written, every word without doubt."

    Thusly there is NO rational thought from the Christian, only the cult drone.

    It's a shame, were this a Christian theocracy, your post would be relivent. since this is NOT a Christian theocracy, your petty myths are just that.....myths.

    Don't forget that a king had that book rewritten that you're holding so dear. not this god guy.

    wake up, invisible people and magic are something even children are smart enough to see as fantasy. how as an adult can you not?

    There still remain four irreducible objections to religious faith:

    · That it wholly misrepresents the origins of man and the cosmos.
    · That because of this original error it manages to combine the maximum of servility with the maximum of solipsism.
    · That it is both the result and the cause of dangerous sexual repression.
    · That it is ultimately grounded on wish-thinking.

    In Deuteronomy Moses gives orders for parents to have their children stoned to death for indiscipline (which seems to violate at least one of the commandments) and continually makes demented pronouncements such as "He that is wounded in the stones, or hath his privy member cut off, shall not enter into the congregation of the Lord".

    In Numbers, Moses addresses his generals after a battle and rages at them for sparing so many civilians: "Now, therefore, kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known a man by lying with him. But all the women-children that hath not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves." This is certainly not the worst of the genocidal incitements that occur in the Old Testament.

    It can be stated as a truth that religion does not, and in the long run cannot, be content with its own marvelous claims and sublime assurances. It must seek to interfere with the lives of nonbelievers, or heretics, or adherents of other faiths. It may speak about the bliss of the next world, but it wants power in this one. This is only to be expected. It is, after all, wholly man-made. And it does not have the confidence in its own various preaching's even to allow coexistence between different faiths.

    In the recent division in the Anglican Church over homosexuality and ordination, several bishops made the fatuous point that homosexuality is "unnatural" because it does not occur in other species. Leave aside the fundamental absurdity of this observation: are humans part of "nature" or not? Or, if they chance to be homosexual, are they created in god's image or not? Leave aside the well-attested fact that numberless kinds of birds and mammals and primates do engage in homosexual play. Who are the clerics to interpret nature? By all means -- for all I care -- let a priest sworn to celibacy be a promiscuous homosexual.

    There may be many circumstances in which it is not desirable to carry a fetus to full term. Either nature or god appears to appreciate this, since a very large number of pregnancies are 'aborted,' so to speak, because of malformations, and are politely known as 'miscarriages.' Sad though this is, it is probably less miserable an outcome than the vast number of deformed or idiot children who would otherwise have been born, or stillborn, or whose brief lives would have been a torment to themselves and others.

    The only proposition that is completely useless, either morally or practically, is the wild statement that sperms and eggs are all potential lives that must not be prevented from fusing and that, when united however briefly, have souls and must be protected by law.

    The whole case for extending protection to the unborn, and to expressing a bias in favor of life, has been wrecked by those religious fanatics who use unborn children, as well as born ones, as mere manipulable objects of their religious doctrine.

    Taking the memorable story of black America as our instance, we should find, first, that the enslaved were not captives of some Pharoah but of several Christian states and societies that for many years operated a triangular "trade" between the west coast of Africa, the eastern seaboard of North America, and the capitals of Europe. This huge and terrible industry was blessed by all churches and for a long time aroused absolutely no religious protest. It was the escaped slave Frederick Douglass, author of the stirring and mordant Autobiography, who eschewed apocalyptic language and demanded instead that the United States live up to the universalist promises contained in its Declaration and its Constitution.

    Douglass was also somewhat ambivalent about religion, noting in his Autiobiography that the most devout Christians made the most savage slaveholders. The obvious truth of this was underlined when secession really did come and the Confederacy adopted the Latin motto "Deo Vindice" or, in effect, "God on Our Side." As Lincoln pointed out in his highly ambivalent second inaugural address, both sides in the quarrel made that claim, at least in their pulpits, just as both were addicted to loud, confident quotations from holy writ. Lincoln himself was hesitant to claim authority in this manner. In fact, at one point he famously said that such invocations of the divine were wrong, because it was rather a matter of trying to be on god's side. Which reminds me of Mr. Cutlip's above letter.

    If I cannot definitively prove that the usefulness of religion is in the past, and that its foundational books are transparent fables, and that it is a man-made imposition, and that it has been an enemy of science and inquiry, and that it has subsisted largely on lies and fears, and been the accomplice of ignorance and guilt as well as of slavery, genocide, racism, and tyranny, I can most certainly claim that religion is now fully aware of these criticisms. It is also fully aware of the ever-mounting evidence, concerning the origins of the cosmos and the origin of species, which consign it to marginality if not to irrelevance.

    Religion poisons everything.

Copyright © The Northern Virginia Daily | nvdaily.com | 152 N. Holliday St., Strasburg, Va. 22657 | (800) 296-5137